God forbid we should have more intelligent, witty, and passioante peopel seeking public office. It's really important that we make sure our politicians are middle-class white folks who have never taken a risk in their life. Thank goodness there are people out there fighting to keep former hip-hop artists and people who use twitter out of politics.

A Liberal candidate dropped out a few days ago over twitter comments (which the NDP had demanded). Two NDP candidates had to drop out in Saskatchewan. All the parties play this game.

Just as I said, let's welcome it! How marvellous that the lines are policed so that polite, change-averse blandness reigns. and all glimmers of humanity (especially from minority groups) are kept out of politics, and only mundane, genteel, polite-phrased everyday racism prevails. How wonderful that all parties help make sure this happens. It is a fine testimony to the marvel that is our poltical system. How splendid that all parties conduct themselves in such a fashion. The fact that everyone does it makes it an even finer thing that it already was. Truly this is the best of all possible worlds.

So the question is can one change and if they have changed can they be allowed to enter into the world of the holier than thou. I am afraid that with the internet young people will not have a place in public discourse because of intemperate things they may say when they are young and stupid. I don't know the man but if he has actually understood the power that his hateful words can have and has spoken out against them prior to seeking office then I don't see a problem with his candidacy.

Quote:

Kinew has repeatedly pointed out that he acknowledged and apologized for his comments in his 2015 book, The Reason You Walk. He also said he has called on hip-hop artists to stop using misogynistic lyrics.

I'm in Fort Rouge and am ridiculously pleased Wab is running here. We can't subject people to historical purity tests when they run - it leaves no room for growth or personal development. I think Wab has addressed the issue and we can move on. Likewise, there have been other candidates who were removed because of things they said years back and have demonstrated that they've movd beyond, thought that was wrong then.

Misogyny is wrong, but it is also pervasive in our society (and in most societies). If his apology is sincere and he really has turned a page, I think one can move on. The 8th Fire was certainly a positive production, in terms of women as well.

I am afraid that with the internet young people will not have a place in public discourse because of intemperate things they may say when they are young and stupid.

They should take notes from this. I think Kinew handled it exactly right.

In particular, I'd suggest to the next crop of hopefuls:

1. You need to completely own your words or actions. Saying "I apologize if anyone was offended..." won't cut it. It also makes it sound like you'd stand by your words or actions if you thought you could get away with it. A real apology is for something you did that YOU believe to be wrong.

2. Don't expect your apology to be a moral car-wash. You can't just apologize and then everything goes away.

3. Don't wait until your political opponents force you to apologize (or demand that you step down). Besides not wanting to put control of the situation in their hands, it just looks opportunistic if you sob and plead AFTER you got busted.

4. Bored? Got time to kill? That's a great opportunity to comb through your old tweets. Saying "I don't remember ever saying that" is not only unconvincing, it also kind of makes you look out of touch with your own beliefs. You might not remember that offensive thing you said about Natives, but you should certainly have some recollection of how you used to feel about Natives.

5. If you're considering a career in public service, or even if you just want to leave that option open, now is as good a time as any to learn to speak your mind without crossing the line into "odious" territory. Sure, the internet makes it easy to say horrible things to or about other anonymous strangers (and might even reward you for doing so) but it's possible to disagree with someone without having to suggest that their mother should have aborted them, or whatever. If you'd like to be elected in 2028, you'll need this skill, so why wait?

He seems to have handled it really well: http://wabkinew.ca/ Unfortunately, I don't know whether I know anyone who knows him personally, so I guess one will have to wait and see. If he still says creepy things it will surface.

Sadly, I don't think you'll get many guys from tough, ghetto backgrounds who don't let loose with that kind of crap in public. The posh can be every bit as boorish, but they have filters in terms of where, when and how that stuff emerges.

No, I'm not making excuses for him because he is from a poor, Indigenous background, and evidently a victim of family violence, but on a certain level one does have to hope that people can change.

Stuff it, quizzical. In some parts of the country, the NDP is just as much a protest vote as the Greens, as the Greens have more public support in PEI and New Brunswick than the NDP does.

I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing NDP supporters dismiss the Greens as a "protest" and "wing nuts." That's the exact kind of arrogance we can expect from the Liberals and Conservatives that is typically thrown at NDP supporters. If you think the NDP is so wonderful in Manitoba, why don't you come out here and tell all the poor, homeless people who keep asking me for change when I go out walking how great the NDP has been for them?

It can't be any less effective than the 37 currently held by the governing party.

quizzical wrote:

we have the same here when you go to the cities and its a Liberal government.

And your average voter who wouldn't walk off a cliff on the orders of a political party hears that excuse and thinks, "Liberal, Conservative, NDP, it doesn't matter who gets in nothing changes" and gives up on the political process entirely.

Did you know that how much money you make is a strong indicator of how likely you are to vote in an election? People don't vote in high numbers in the poorer parts of Winnipeg.

A Liberal candidate dropped out a few days ago over twitter comments (which the NDP had demanded). Four NDP candidates and a campaign manager had to drop out in Saskatchewan. All the parties play this game.

You know, A24, the MB Greens mention guarnateed minimum income, but there's not a lot of detail on how that's going to work. They mention "income tax reform" but no real details on what that means.

One thing does jump out at me: They want to tie funding for schools to income tax instead of property taxes. This would effectively be a tax break for property owners, and an offload of that expense to everyone, wouldn't it? That's progressive and pro-social?

Sorry, they're not passing the "not conservatives" sniff test for me. Meanwhile, kneejerk voters will help the Tory bid and fuck things up worse than they are for all of us. Ta very much.

You know, A24, the MB Greens mention guarnateed minimum income, but there's not a lot of detail on how that's going to work. They mention "income tax reform" but no real details on what that means.

One thing does jump out at me: They want to tie funding for schools to income tax instead of property taxes. This would effectively be a tax break for property owners, and an offload of that expense to everyone, wouldn't it? That's progressive and pro-social?

Sorry, they're not passing the "not conservatives" sniff test for me. Meanwhile, kneejerk voters will help the Tory bid and fuck things up worse than they are for all of us. Ta very much.

Their platform hasn't come out yet, but looking at their policy framwork, there seems to be a lot of diverse policies, some of which are clearly to the left of the NDP.

Regarding education taxes, their platform calls for raising personal income taxes (which, could be raised in a progressive manner) and corporate taxes to cover the cost. I haven't studied this question in detail, but I wouldn't immediately write the entire party off as a bunch of conservatives because of this one policy. Not to mention that if we are going to consider a party as "conservatives" based off of one policy, does that mean that the NDP are also conservative and worth writing off completely because a lot of their policies around crime and justice while Andrew Swan was AG were straight out of Harper's playbook?

- Restorative Justice (pretty much anything is to the left of the NDP with Andrew Swan's more Harperite than Harper approach)

- Opposing energy east (the Manitoba NDP more or less supports it)

- Banning fracking (it's happening under the NDP's watch)

- Oppose CETA

- Implement a Guaranteed Annual Income

- "actively encourage collective bargaining" (though to be fair, I'm not sure the details of the policy change they recommend would work out all that well in practice)

- Extending legal protections to farm labourers

There are a few things in their policy book that could be considered right wing, but the whole "Tories with composters" label doesn't fit, considering I don't know a lot of Tories who are pro-childcare, pro-PR, pro-collective bargaining, and pro-environment. I haven't decided who to vote for yet, but writing the Greens in Manitoba off as a bunch of conservatives isn't fair or accurate (though, I suppose it may serve partisan purposes).

Besides, even if they have a few right-wing policies, it might be good to have one Green MLA in the house, if only to raise all those other progressive issues in their policy book.

One thing does jump out at me: They want to tie funding for schools to income tax instead of property taxes. This would effectively be a tax break for property owners, and an offload of that expense to everyone, wouldn't it? That's progressive and pro-social?

I've long wondered why any social program at all (let alone education) should be funded in proportion to the market value of the home you own - rather than the wealth you accumulate in total terms.

Someone who owns mansions arounds the world and rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg pays no property tax (correct?). And landlords pay property tax, but make sure they charge enough rent to recoup that plus all other costs of maintaining the property (correct?).

Individuals should be taxed - progressively - on their total accumulation of wealth (e.g., no special breaks for "capital gains" vs. income from employment, etc.), and wealth should then be re-distributed (e.g. via social programs) on that basis.

I see nothing progressive at all about property tax. Glad to see someone is actually questioning it in a way that (hopefully) will worry rich individuals and corporations. If they're serious about it. But at least it's a good conversation to initiate.

I've long wondered why any social program at all (let alone education) should be funded in proportion to the market value of the home you own - rather than the wealth you accumulate in total terms.

Seems to me that you'll only know the REAL market value of the house you own if you sell it.

The municipal employee who drives past your home and says "it's worth $300K" -- the amount you'll be paying taxes based on -- probably isn't going to be required to cover the difference if you actually sell your home on the open market and it only sells for $250K. I'm betting you wouldn't get any kind of property tax refund, either.

Most places that use property taxes to fund schools do so at the school board level and that is not progressive at all. It means that rich cities have more tax revenue to spend on THEIR kids school while the poorer places get second rate services.

Someone who owns mansions arounds the world and rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg pays no property tax (correct?).

Sweetie, nobody who owns mansions around the world rents a luxury apartment in *Winnipeg*. Don't get me wrong, I like the city well enough, but let's be realistic. ;)

Anyway, if it means raising income tax across the board, you're raising them to people who can't afford to buy in a housing market that is relatively modest. It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped, but it's not necessarily a benefit to the people with lower incomes.

Timebandit: Property tax is obsolete. It's not progressive in any way. Tax on wealth (applied progressively) is progressive.

Magoo: I'm so sorry I said "market value". I meant to say, "assessed value". Are we good now?

47 years after the first Manitoba NDP campaign I ever worked on (and yeah, they won), they haven't come within a light year of even proposing the kind of labour legislation that Québec has had since the 1970s. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is progressive people that don't notice.Or pretend not to notice. Or that say "Pallister would be worse". Or, "oh those Greens, they're just Conservatives with composters".

Progressive Manitobans (in my expat opinion) should tell the NDP to get with the program, or FOAD. And I do believe they're telling them that.

Someone who owns mansions arounds the world and rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg pays no property tax (correct?).

Sweetie, nobody who owns mansions around the world rents a luxury apartment in *Winnipeg*. Don't get me wrong, I like the city well enough, but let's be realistic. ;)

Anyway, if it means raising income tax across the board, you're raising them to people who can't afford to buy in a housing market that is relatively modest. It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped, but it's not necessarily a benefit to the people with lower incomes.

How about someone who rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg, and has some of his real estate holdings tied up in a million dollar cottage just across the border in Lake of the Woods?

Or, someone less well off, who pays a large portion of their income towards housing (and thus property taxes, whether directly because they own or indirectly because they rent and their landlord factors the cost of property tax into their rent), versus someone who is really well off, but puts his money into fast cars, expensive vacations, and expensive toys (and thus has a smaller proportion of their income/wealth tied up in taxable real estate?).

It does seem like a rather arcane way to fund education, and one that is prone to some disparities, such as people in richer areas having better-funded schools when people in poorer areas are the ones who really need extra support for schools.

Regardless, you make a good point. It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped. But it could be done in a progressive manner, taking higher incomes more (as well as raising corporate taxes). So, with the details present, we can't conclusively say that this is a terrible, right-wing, anti-progressive idea that proves that the Greens are a bunch of closet Tories.

Not to mention, one could argue that raising the PST wasn't a very progressive way to raise revenue either, compared to corporate or income taxes...

A tax set at a fixed percentage of income or expenditure is termed a proportionate or flat-rate tax. For example, the GST is 7% on something that costs $1 or $10,000. In contrast, the income tax system is designed to be progressive—the tax rate increases at higher levels of income (see Tax terminology). A regressive tax has the opposite relationship with income—the tax rate falls as income increases.

The progressivity of income tax is evident (Table 2). Families with less than $20,000 of pre-tax income in 1998 paid income tax equalling 4.0% of their income. The income tax rate rises for each successive income class, reaching 28.6% for families that brought in $100,000 or more—the mark of a progressive rate structure.

Quote:

Property taxes are regressive with respect to income

Although property taxes are proportionate with respect to property values, they are regressive with respect to family income. In 1998, families with incomes under $20,000 paid 10.0% of their income in property taxes whereas those with incomes of $100,000 and over paid just 1.8% (Chart A). Between these two extremes, the proportion of income consumed by property taxes declined with each step up in family income.

Sounds to me like repacing property tax revenues with revenues from income and corporate taxes would actually be a progressive move.

Regardless, you make a good point. It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped. But it could be done in a progressive manner, taking higher incomes more (as well as raising corporate taxes). So, with the details present, we can't conclusively say that this is a terrible, right-wing, anti-progressive idea that proves that the Greens are a bunch of closet Tories.

This reminds me of Pallister's call to raise the basic personal exemption to $20,000. I've heard a response that all that does is reduce government revenue for needed programs. That argument doesn't wash because people on the margins look at how much they make, they see their schools and libraries and community centres lose funding and yet there's always enough for big projects like True North, and they don't see why the government needs any more of their money. You can structure the tax system to both raise the BPE and take more from higher income earners, but pointing that out might remind people that the party that should be on the side of working peopl hasn't always governed with their interests in mind.

genstrike wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:

Someone who owns mansions arounds the world and rents a luxury penthouse suite in Winnipeg pays no property tax (correct?).

Sweetie, nobody who owns mansions around the world rents a luxury apartment in *Winnipeg*. Don't get me wrong, I like the city well enough, but let's be realistic. ;)

Anyway, if it means raising income tax across the board, you're raising them to people who can't afford to buy in a housing market that is relatively modest. It would very much depend on how income tax was revamped, but it's not necessarily a benefit to the people with lower incomes.

Not to mention, one could argue that raising the PST wasn't a very progressive way to raise revenue either, compared to corporate or income taxes...

Along with this, there are other things wrong with raising the PST:

Selinger plainly stated that he would not do so. To your average unaligned voter, it's just another in a long line of promises that politicians break

Along that line, it gives the NDP's opponents a convenient club with which to beat the NDP over the head for years to come

It feeds right into the hands of NDP critics who say the NDP can't balance a budget even while raising everybody's taxes

By dropping it on people without a referendum, they burned their political capital on something that is very unpopular.

To be fair, the NDP has expanded the number of spaces, improved wages for child care workers, introduced pensions, and there are flexible training options for people who wish to enter into that field.

True, but not it's not quite a universal, publicly subsidized, affordable system like in Quebec.

Honestly, I think the NDP in Manitoba has made some major mistakes over the years that are coming back to bite them (not repealing balanced-budget legislation 15 years ago, being to aggressive with corporate and income tax cuts and raising the PST, etc.).

But, I think one of the real reasons they are in trouble is that while they haven't gone full-tilt into austerity mode and have made some improvements here and there (while also falling behind in some areas as well), they don't really have a crowning achievement of their time in office that they can point to and say "there, we made this new, popular social program happen." This means instead of being able to point to something like $7/day childcare or eliminating tuition fees on PSE or a number of other things they could have done had they not squandered the opportunity, all they have left is to attack the PCs and promote fear of a Tory government.

The PCs probably deserve those attacks and more, but aside from us political junkies, I'm not sure that way of doing politics is that attractive and is the sort of thing which is successful in the long run, especially not as time passes and more and more voters were too young to remember the misdeeds of the Filmon government. And after 16 years in power, that long run is starting to appear on the horizon.

Selinger plainly stated that he would not do so. To your average unaligned voter, it's just another in a long line of promises that politicians break

Along that line, it gives the NDP's opponents a convenient club with which to beat the NDP over the head for years to come

It feeds right into the hands of NDP critics who say the NDP can't balance a budget even while raising everybody's taxes

By dropping it on people without a referendum, they burned their political capital on something that is very unpopular.

Agreed. Part of me has to shake my head that the NDP for so long resisted what little pressure there was from the left for things like anti-scab legislation, etc., claiming that said initiatives might be nice and we really do agree with you, but they would be too unpopular and cost us the election, and then would be reversed under a Tory government anyways.

And then instead of something like universal PSE, universal Quebec-style childcare, or even anti-scab legislation, they choose regressive taxation as their hill to die on. Huh?

I think one of the real reasons they are in trouble is that while they haven't gone full-tilt into austerity mode and have made some improvements here and there (while also falling behind in some areas as well), they don't really have a crowning achievement of their time in office that they can point to and say "there, we made this new, popular social program happen." This means instead of being able to point to something like $7/day childcare or eliminating tuition fees on PSE or a number of other things they could have done had they not squandered the opportunity, all they have left is to attack the PCs and promote fear of a Tory government.

Off the top of my head, I can think of MPI and the construction of Brandon's Keystone Centre that happened under Schreyer's watch, and the advancement of gay and francophone rights that happened under Pawley's watch. There's Neighbourhoods Alive! that happened under this government's watch, but what else? There's hydro dam construction, but given the issues with hydroelectricity on flat topography, the strain it has caused for First Nations, and the unreliability of international markets, shouldn't Manitoba Hydro be more proactive in moving towards smaller-scale power generation?

The Winnipeg Free Press released a poll this week (sorry, it's behind a subscription wall) that essentially says Manitobans don't really like any of the 3 main party leaders. This continues a pattern from the last election, where the public perception of all 3 parties worsened during the course of the campaign. So who knows, maybe if the cards line up, there is an outside chance of electing Canada's first ever Green government.

While Liberal Leader Rana Bokhari leads the poll with 26 per cent support in Fort Rouge, her advantage is squarely within the margin of error.

The Progressive Conservatives' Audrey Gordon and NDP's Wab Kinew are close at Bokhari's heels, with 24 per cent support. Green candidate Grant Sharp trails far behind main party candidates with 6 per cent support.

"If this poll is correct, I think Audrey Gordon is the big winner in this poll. I think if anyone should be doing high-fives on this poll it should be Audrey Gordon," said political analyst Christopher Adams.

Adams said political observers had thought the star power of former broadcaster New Democrat Wab Kinew and the leader status of Liberal Rana Bokhari made it a two-way race.

"We'd been thinking... those were the two front runners and the others were 'also rans' but we also see the Progressive Conservative candidate Audrey Gordon and she's really in there. So it's a three-way race," Adams said.

In any case, back to the issue of Kinew's tweets, I have to ask those who have posted in his defense: everything else being equal, would you still defend Kinew and be willing to overlook and move past this issue if he had instead run as a Liberal (or even Green)?